PJ, I'm not talking about W/L... I'm talking about effort... about being out skated... about being the first to the puck... about having jump in their legs
I have never had any illusions about the Rangers this year... indeed, I want them to get a great draft pick... but what I don't understand is the cause of the sudden change in effort - and increase in sloppy, careless, penalty filled play.
PJ, I'm not talking about W/L... I'm talking about effort... about being out skated... about being the first to the puck... about having jump in their legs
I have never had any illusions about the Rangers this year... indeed, I want them to get a great draft pick... but what I don't understand is the cause of the sudden change in effort - and increase in sloppy, careless, penalty filled play.
I didn't see what you saw Bill.
I saw a lower-talent, team, losing games because of a talent gap. With elite goal-tending and msx effort and a great system that players all buy into some talent gap can be closed IMO, but not a huge one in the NHL< and not consistently. that 9 - 1 - 1 stretch or whatever it was earlier in the year maybe was fool's gold for some people because it fit that mode.
Do you mean to say you never saw this Rangers team being a high effort, motivated team?
Or do you mean you don't see any difference in their play over the last 3 games?
Because I see both. What I saw before the last three games was a team lacking in talent who was never going to be able to compete with teams with higher level talent - but who skated their butts off with high energy and effort.
And what I've seen over the last 2 games in particular is a team playing without direction, taking lazy penalties, with zero jump in their legs, not scrambling to the puck, and just not making the same effort they made earlier.
We all agree there is a big drop-off in talent. That's no big surprise and is a big "DUH". What is a surprise is going up against mediocre talent the last two games and being outworked.
i mean all year you saying "this is a fun team to watch".
Maybe you have a point on their effort, I don't know, but I did not find the Rangers fun to watch.
I found them lacking talent, lacking zone time, lack shots (most of the time), lacking puck control. they have a few bright spots and I said before if Hayes and Kreider played 2 - 3 years ago like they're playing now they'd have their name on the cup, but mostly it's old Hank, awful D, and a group of grinders at F.
While I like the grit game, that's not what the Rangers have.
I watch them when there isn't a conflict with something else because they used to have the most concentration of American players and guys I'd followed from their youth hockey/juniors days like Stepan, Miller, Kreider, McDonagh, Skjei, etc. and because there are a lot of Rangers fans on here who like to talk hockey.
If you found the Rangers were a max effort team and now they're not than we differ slightly in our evaluation, but my point with the charts was, their puck luck had been high (shooting percentage inflated as well as save percent), both have normalized along with their record.
You watch them more closely than me to see if the effort tailed off too, but the other stats indicate they're playing equal to their record right now.
i mean all year you saying "this is a fun team to watch"...
That is probably because you aren't a Rangers fan. I have watched the Rangers for close to 60 years and in all that time I do not believe I have ever watched an entire game that didn't include the Rangers.
This team was a fun team to watch (and I think will probably once again become a fun team to watch) precisely because they were a team without high end talent who kept games close solely because of their high energy and effort (and Hank playing out of his mind).
What I don't completely understand is what has caused the sudden change over the last 8 periods of ice time. It has been a dramatic change. It probably isn't a big deal but is a tad worrisome to me because I believe effort (or more precisely lack thereof) usually relates to some form of coaching issue.
If I needed high talent to watch the Rangers for the last 60 years, I'd have given up a loooong time ago. I loved playing hockey (including street hockey into my 40s). I think it is the best team sport to play of all the sports. But from a fan perspective, I am all about one thing and one thing only - the Rangers as a long term organization - the process as an organization from season to season - and enjoying watching that one team and only that team.
It's a very odd thing that I can't honestly rationally explain. Football is close to being the same for me (no interest if the Giants are involved, although I have certainly watched the SB and other complete games that haven't included the Giants).
how much effort the Rangers players are and aren't giving in recent weeks.
Its a silly explanation to try and explain away a losing streak with a team that even with Bill's "exciting high effort" had the lowest ROW in the entire national hockey league two weeks ago.
The team lacks talent and needs to continue to be gutted. Obviously.
game (almost) and enjoy it. I agree it's the best of the team sports from a spectator standpoint.
I am an effort fan, and like I said I believe at some level effort can close the talent gap, but I think the PDO stats explain what you were seeing in close games (high shooting % and high save %) and I don't know maybe that gives the appearance of effective effort.
I don't know, but I found the Rangers boring all year, only reasons I watched now were to see Chytil and Andersson and to a lesser extent Pionk. I was really impressed with him in the World Cup.
But...as much as I enjoy effort, even more I enjoy watching a player like Gaudreau, Bergeron, Kopitar, etc, - those guys have talent, effort, and IQ. My favorite player to watch though is Crosby, as hated as he is, he thinks the game 2 or 3 plays ahead of everyone else. I can't tell you how many clips I've sent my kids of Crosby to show them how to anticipate the play instead of following it.
The little things we do in practice over and over again that become so repetitive, he does them in games so obviously he's the best training tool I've seen.
Anyway, I like some of the Rangers youth, and prospects, but they have some work to do that waving the coaching magic wand won't fix. Like Quinn or not, he's given Hayes and Kreider trade value (or they gave it to themselves) I don't think they had before the season.
how much effort the Rangers players are and aren't giving in recent weeks.
Its a silly explanation to try and explain away a losing streak with a team that even with Bill's "exciting high effort" had the lowest ROW in the entire national hockey league two weeks ago.
The team lacks talent and needs to continue to be gutted. Obviously.
I don't agree with that at all. Hell, anyone that watches hockey long term can see differences in effort between periods of the same game. How quick they are to chase loose pucks and how quick they are on top of the guy with the puck.
As far as rebuilding and needing to find some young talent... well a big "duh".
... I am an effort fan, and like I said I believe at some level effort can close the talent gap, but I think the PDO stats explain what you were seeing in close games (high shooting % and high save %) and I don't know maybe that gives the appearance of effective effort.
...
PJ, I get that. I do. But I watch (and have always watched) almost all Ranger games every year - year in and year out. And, as you well can imagine, those were some long, lonely years. I mean, it's one thing to be a long term Giants fan through the 60s and 70s, but to be a Rangers fan is a different level.
And as I just posted, I do think effort is something you can see. As I said, you can see it in different periods of the same game. In most hockey games, one team usually has the better jump to the puck (whether a loose puck or getting to the puck handler) than the other team. And Quinn obviously preaches skating downhill in the offensive zone - being the first to loose pucks - or pressuring the puck handler by jumping all over him as soon as he gets his stick on the puck.
And that is precisely what the Rangers had been doing - and which has suddenly stopped over the past two games. They are losing the battles for the puck - they are being consistently beaten to the puck over the last two games. And, to go with that, the other team has been able to set up in the Ranger's zone 5 on 5 as though they were on a power play. Something has dramatically changed in their effort over the past two games.
Against Pittsburgh? I get it. I knew what was going to happen after that scoreless first period against Pittsburgh. But the inability to win the race to the puck over these last two games? Not so much.
without a whistle for several minutes until play is stopped by a goal... at which time a replay shows the SOG several minutes earlier was actually a goal:
Is the result: 1 good goal and the clock reset to the time of the first goal, with the subsequent goal disallowed?
RE: If there is a SOG that the refs call no goal and play continues
without a whistle for several minutes until play is stopped by a goal... at which time a replay shows the SOG several minutes earlier was actually a goal:
Is the result: 1 good goal and the clock reset to the time of the first goal, with the subsequent goal disallowed?
Yes, the clock and everything else goes back to when the first (and now only) goal was scored, and play continues from there.
By "embracing the tank" I meant that the Rangers apparently have stopped really trying the way they were earlier in the season. Maybe it's because Kevin Hayes is injured or because they're thinking too much about the trade deadline, but they have absolutely gone into the tank since that Pittsburgh game last week, and it seems to show no sign of stopping.
...
By "embracing the tank" I meant that the Rangers apparently have stopped really trying the way they were earlier in the season. Maybe it's because Kevin Hayes is injured or because they're thinking too much about the trade deadline, but they have absolutely gone into the tank since that Pittsburgh game last week, and it seems to show no sign of stopping.
Yea, it's a difficult time... probably a few things all contributing... disillusionment and worries about the almost certain changes coming up as the trade deadline draws closer... it will certainly help with draft position but it was much more fun watching them when they had jump in their game... hopefully we get to see some of 2018's draft picks getting a shot next year
And did you notice when he entered the box, McLeod totally ignored him? WTF?
I didn't get to really see the replay - want to see it again - but what I did see, seemed to be they got their skates caught up - but without any attempt to stick out his leg/foot, without which how can that be a trip?
Not great, but undoubtedly the best period they've played
Zucc should've kept both hands on his stick... but it was only a brief second and didn't have any impact on the play... just as long as they call them all this tight, I don't have a problem... but I'm not convinced they're going to call all of them that tight
Rangers have more jump in their game again... esp the Chytil line
during the last 2 minutes of every period they play (and often get scored upon in the last 2 minutes)... they need to work on that ... to be more aggressive offensively and keep the puck in the offensive zone... I wonder if there are stats regarding puck possession/SOG during the last 2 minutes of every period...
Could the Isles still ice the puck with no faceoff?
I imagine yes but just checking.
Sure. The rule is that there is no icing when your team has one fewer players on the ice due to penalty. What positions those players play is irrelevant (i.e. goalie or no goalie).
Could the Isles still ice the puck with no faceoff?
I imagine yes but just checking.
Any time you're on a penalty kill you can ice the puck without a whistle. goalie in or not.
It is interesting to know though that USA Hockey just changed this rule and short-handed youth hockey teams are no longer allowed to ice the puck. They did this in an attempt to get kids to learn to be creative and find ways to exit the zone without icing it. 1 man down, 2 men down, doesn't matter. You cannot ice it.
I read they are considering adopting this rule in upper levels (NCAA, juniors, AHL, etc.) as a trial for NHL adoption.
I think it would lead to more scoring or more icing face-offs during penalty times, or both. I hated it at first for my kids I coach, but I understand it, not sure I like it at the upper levels.
I've often thought of doing this cause of the critique of not enough scoring in hockey. It would definitely increase goal output.
I think the league would weigh the off-set of slowing the game down with a ton of extra whistles and play stoppages vs more scoring and vote against it.
but if they could somehow trade removing offsides review for no short-handed icing I'd consider it. offsides review is hurting not helping and probably takes as long as all these whistles would.
it was bound to happen...
PJ, I'm not talking about W/L... I'm talking about effort... about being out skated... about being the first to the puck... about having jump in their legs
I have never had any illusions about the Rangers this year... indeed, I want them to get a great draft pick... but what I don't understand is the cause of the sudden change in effort - and increase in sloppy, careless, penalty filled play.
Quote:
it was bound to happen...
PJ, I'm not talking about W/L... I'm talking about effort... about being out skated... about being the first to the puck... about having jump in their legs
I have never had any illusions about the Rangers this year... indeed, I want them to get a great draft pick... but what I don't understand is the cause of the sudden change in effort - and increase in sloppy, careless, penalty filled play.
I didn't see what you saw Bill.
I saw a lower-talent, team, losing games because of a talent gap. With elite goal-tending and msx effort and a great system that players all buy into some talent gap can be closed IMO, but not a huge one in the NHL< and not consistently. that 9 - 1 - 1 stretch or whatever it was earlier in the year maybe was fool's gold for some people because it fit that mode.
Do you mean to say you never saw this Rangers team being a high effort, motivated team?
Or do you mean you don't see any difference in their play over the last 3 games?
Because I see both. What I saw before the last three games was a team lacking in talent who was never going to be able to compete with teams with higher level talent - but who skated their butts off with high energy and effort.
And what I've seen over the last 2 games in particular is a team playing without direction, taking lazy penalties, with zero jump in their legs, not scrambling to the puck, and just not making the same effort they made earlier.
We all agree there is a big drop-off in talent. That's no big surprise and is a big "DUH". What is a surprise is going up against mediocre talent the last two games and being outworked.
Maybe you have a point on their effort, I don't know, but I did not find the Rangers fun to watch.
I found them lacking talent, lacking zone time, lack shots (most of the time), lacking puck control. they have a few bright spots and I said before if Hayes and Kreider played 2 - 3 years ago like they're playing now they'd have their name on the cup, but mostly it's old Hank, awful D, and a group of grinders at F.
While I like the grit game, that's not what the Rangers have.
I watch them when there isn't a conflict with something else because they used to have the most concentration of American players and guys I'd followed from their youth hockey/juniors days like Stepan, Miller, Kreider, McDonagh, Skjei, etc. and because there are a lot of Rangers fans on here who like to talk hockey.
If you found the Rangers were a max effort team and now they're not than we differ slightly in our evaluation, but my point with the charts was, their puck luck had been high (shooting percentage inflated as well as save percent), both have normalized along with their record.
You watch them more closely than me to see if the effort tailed off too, but the other stats indicate they're playing equal to their record right now.
That is probably because you aren't a Rangers fan. I have watched the Rangers for close to 60 years and in all that time I do not believe I have ever watched an entire game that didn't include the Rangers.
This team was a fun team to watch (and I think will probably once again become a fun team to watch) precisely because they were a team without high end talent who kept games close solely because of their high energy and effort (and Hank playing out of his mind).
What I don't completely understand is what has caused the sudden change over the last 8 periods of ice time. It has been a dramatic change. It probably isn't a big deal but is a tad worrisome to me because I believe effort (or more precisely lack thereof) usually relates to some form of coaching issue.
If I needed high talent to watch the Rangers for the last 60 years, I'd have given up a loooong time ago. I loved playing hockey (including street hockey into my 40s). I think it is the best team sport to play of all the sports. But from a fan perspective, I am all about one thing and one thing only - the Rangers as a long term organization - the process as an organization from season to season - and enjoying watching that one team and only that team.
It's a very odd thing that I can't honestly rationally explain. Football is close to being the same for me (no interest if the Giants are involved, although I have certainly watched the SB and other complete games that haven't included the Giants).
Its a silly explanation to try and explain away a losing streak with a team that even with Bill's "exciting high effort" had the lowest ROW in the entire national hockey league two weeks ago.
The team lacks talent and needs to continue to be gutted. Obviously.
I am an effort fan, and like I said I believe at some level effort can close the talent gap, but I think the PDO stats explain what you were seeing in close games (high shooting % and high save %) and I don't know maybe that gives the appearance of effective effort.
I don't know, but I found the Rangers boring all year, only reasons I watched now were to see Chytil and Andersson and to a lesser extent Pionk. I was really impressed with him in the World Cup.
But...as much as I enjoy effort, even more I enjoy watching a player like Gaudreau, Bergeron, Kopitar, etc, - those guys have talent, effort, and IQ. My favorite player to watch though is Crosby, as hated as he is, he thinks the game 2 or 3 plays ahead of everyone else. I can't tell you how many clips I've sent my kids of Crosby to show them how to anticipate the play instead of following it.
The little things we do in practice over and over again that become so repetitive, he does them in games so obviously he's the best training tool I've seen.
Anyway, I like some of the Rangers youth, and prospects, but they have some work to do that waving the coaching magic wand won't fix. Like Quinn or not, he's given Hayes and Kreider trade value (or they gave it to themselves) I don't think they had before the season.
Its a silly explanation to try and explain away a losing streak with a team that even with Bill's "exciting high effort" had the lowest ROW in the entire national hockey league two weeks ago.
The team lacks talent and needs to continue to be gutted. Obviously.
I don't agree with that at all. Hell, anyone that watches hockey long term can see differences in effort between periods of the same game. How quick they are to chase loose pucks and how quick they are on top of the guy with the puck.
As far as rebuilding and needing to find some young talent... well a big "duh".
...
PJ, I get that. I do. But I watch (and have always watched) almost all Ranger games every year - year in and year out. And, as you well can imagine, those were some long, lonely years. I mean, it's one thing to be a long term Giants fan through the 60s and 70s, but to be a Rangers fan is a different level.
And as I just posted, I do think effort is something you can see. As I said, you can see it in different periods of the same game. In most hockey games, one team usually has the better jump to the puck (whether a loose puck or getting to the puck handler) than the other team. And Quinn obviously preaches skating downhill in the offensive zone - being the first to loose pucks - or pressuring the puck handler by jumping all over him as soon as he gets his stick on the puck.
And that is precisely what the Rangers had been doing - and which has suddenly stopped over the past two games. They are losing the battles for the puck - they are being consistently beaten to the puck over the last two games. And, to go with that, the other team has been able to set up in the Ranger's zone 5 on 5 as though they were on a power play. Something has dramatically changed in their effort over the past two games.
Against Pittsburgh? I get it. I knew what was going to happen after that scoreless first period against Pittsburgh. But the inability to win the race to the puck over these last two games? Not so much.
Is the result: 1 good goal and the clock reset to the time of the first goal, with the subsequent goal disallowed?
Is the result: 1 good goal and the clock reset to the time of the first goal, with the subsequent goal disallowed?
Yes, the clock and everything else goes back to when the first (and now only) goal was scored, and play continues from there.
By "embracing the tank" I meant that the Rangers apparently have stopped really trying the way they were earlier in the season. Maybe it's because Kevin Hayes is injured or because they're thinking too much about the trade deadline, but they have absolutely gone into the tank since that Pittsburgh game last week, and it seems to show no sign of stopping.
By "embracing the tank" I meant that the Rangers apparently have stopped really trying the way they were earlier in the season. Maybe it's because Kevin Hayes is injured or because they're thinking too much about the trade deadline, but they have absolutely gone into the tank since that Pittsburgh game last week, and it seems to show no sign of stopping.
Yea, it's a difficult time... probably a few things all contributing... disillusionment and worries about the almost certain changes coming up as the trade deadline draws closer... it will certainly help with draft position but it was much more fun watching them when they had jump in their game... hopefully we get to see some of 2018's draft picks getting a shot next year
I didn't get to really see the replay - want to see it again - but what I did see, seemed to be they got their skates caught up - but without any attempt to stick out his leg/foot, without which how can that be a trip?
Like I said!
But oh well, another loss toward a pick. Whatever.
(my wife says I talk to myself more and more anyway)
I imagine yes but just checking.
I imagine yes but just checking.
Sure. The rule is that there is no icing when your team has one fewer players on the ice due to penalty. What positions those players play is irrelevant (i.e. goalie or no goalie).
I imagine yes but just checking.
Any time you're on a penalty kill you can ice the puck without a whistle. goalie in or not.
It is interesting to know though that USA Hockey just changed this rule and short-handed youth hockey teams are no longer allowed to ice the puck. They did this in an attempt to get kids to learn to be creative and find ways to exit the zone without icing it. 1 man down, 2 men down, doesn't matter. You cannot ice it.
I read they are considering adopting this rule in upper levels (NCAA, juniors, AHL, etc.) as a trial for NHL adoption.
I think it would lead to more scoring or more icing face-offs during penalty times, or both. I hated it at first for my kids I coach, but I understand it, not sure I like it at the upper levels.
I think the league would weigh the off-set of slowing the game down with a ton of extra whistles and play stoppages vs more scoring and vote against it.
but if they could somehow trade removing offsides review for no short-handed icing I'd consider it. offsides review is hurting not helping and probably takes as long as all these whistles would.